In a discussion on Free Will (the idea that we have the ability to make independent choices not determined by genetics, environmental history, or brain chemistry) atheist Jerry Coyne makes this rather startling statement concerning his view of free will:

“We simply don’t like to think that we’re molecular automatons, and so we adopt a definition of free will that makes us think we’re free. But as far as I can see, I, like everyone else, am just a molecular puppet. I don’t like that much, but that’s how it is. I don’t like the fact that I’m going to die, either, but you don’t see me redefining the notion of “death” to pretend I’m immortal”.

That statement itself is not the contradiction I want to address. Indeed, despite the fact that many atheists might believe in free will, the lack of free will is actually the consistent position within atheism. This is because since naturalism denies the existence of a soul or something like it all that remains of our cognitive facilities is chemical processes in the physical brain. In short there is no ‘I’ there to hold opinions, make choices, or hold beliefs – there is only the organ of the brain responding to stimuli. As much as ‘we’ might feel like ‘we’ are making choices about what ‘we’ desire, this feeling would by necessity be merely illusory in a naturalistic schema; all that exists is the mechanism of the brain; there is no ‘person’ actually there.

Where the contradiction comes in is the when atheists discuss what is or isn’t true concerning beliefs about religion and atheism. If no free will exists, and if thoughts and beliefs are merely the result of physical and chemical processes in the brain, then what an individual believes is already determined and they are no more able to change that reality than they are able to fly to another planet by merely thinking about it. Religious sentiment as well atheistic rejection of that sentiment is simply the way our particular cognitive equipment responds to the stimuli we encounter – it has nothing to do with someone being ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ or any more or less reasonable or logical. So the entire conversation for an atheist is moot, and any devotion to advancing their beliefs is an exercise in futility.

But then again, if atheism is true, they may have no other choice in the matter.

If science were to disappear, the world as we know it would collapse into another Dark Age. But if theology was no more? What would we lose?

First off, the question is a bit of a strawman, because it is comparing the results of scientific knowledge (our current technologies and understanding of the universe) with the vague notion of ‘theology’ which of course isn’t a single thing, but instead disparate ideas which people may or may not act on. We don’t know what effects current theological ideas might have in the future, just as we don’t know what impact current scientific ideas might have in the future . There are after all many scientific theories in existence today which would have no discernible impact if the knowledge of them were gone; string theory comes to mind for example. But we do know what effects past theological ideas have had.

So a fair comparison would be if we compared the impact of scientific knowledge over time to the impact of Christian theological knowledge over time.

We know for example that the impact of certain theologies produced most classical Western works of literature, music, and art. It influenced great thinkers and scientists like Newton, Pascal, and Bacon, who were theologians as well as scientists and thinkers.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, it influenced the creation of unified languages, which in turn inspired the character of nations, as well as political and social movements like the Reformation, a critical turning point in Western culture and political thought. It influenced the establishment of many of the greatest universities like Yale and Harvard, in addition to essential social organizations like hospitals, orphanages, the Red Cross and the Salvation Army. It inspired important concepts like human equality and the endowment of inalienable rights, and furthered adoption of the same through groups like the Abolitionists.

Those are just a few critical aspects of our lives we owe to Christian theology. So had it not existed, neither than would our science, nor the culture in which science now operates. Theology is certainly more critical.

A recent editorial in Nature Immunology, a member of the Nature family of scientific journals bizarrely attacks Francis Collins, the current head of the NIH and former leader of the Human Genome Project, for his “openly religious stance”. The editorial claims that this stance “could have undesirable effects on science education in the United States.” Apparently this is because in the introduction of his new book Collins, “describes his belief in a non-natural, non-measurable, improvable deity that created the universe and its laws with humans as the ultimate aim of its creation.” which has the potential to “create opportunities for creationism adepts” – whatever those are.

I won’t get into the absurdity of the notion that Francis Collins, an accomplished and awarded scientist, is somehow corrupting science by his very existence. Nor will I attempt to address the notion that he is, despite his belief in and defense of Neo-Darwinism, a ‘creationist’. This is futile, given that atheists now apparently define a Creationist as, “Anyone who does not equate science with atheism”.

Instead I want to address this notion that a belief in ‘Creationism’ somehow corrupts one’s ability to study and work in the sciences.

Part of the answer to this of course comes down to how one defines Creationism. As I pointed out, in atheist parlance it is essentially equivalent to any defense of theism. More traditionally, it is the notion that specific Scriptures concerning the origin of the universe, life, and humans can be supported through scientific evidences (This is would be how creationists define themselves). The current conventional idea however, the one addressed in recent court rulings, statutes, and school board considerations is the idea that there is reasonable basis to be skeptical of wholly natural explanations of the origin of the universe, life, and humanity.

So we have to ask, how is it this last consideration can ‘threaten’ a science education?

The vast majority of sciences – chemistry, physics, engineering, genetics, medicine, agronomy, the computer sciences, etc, don’t rely in any way on a particular idea about origins at all. They deal with nature as it is not how it came into being. Some other sciences, like geology, astronomy/astrophysics, and biology deal with theories of origins to some extent, though rarely as a matter of essential practice. For example there is no definitive theory of the origins of life itself; no settled notion of the origin of the genome or the cell. In fact, there is a legitimate question as to whether there ever will be any certain knowledge concerning the natural processes that presumably governed the origin of life – this does not mean we cannot continue to study and understand living processes.

Much the same can be said for ideas about origins of the universe. Though the inception of the universe is widely understood to begin with the Big Bang, but the causes of this event, and the laws that governed it’s eventual manifestation as a universe where life can exist as it does, are certainly far from understood and again not critical to the ordinary cataloging and exploration of the universe as it is. There is certainly nothing there that requires anyone to be atheistic in one’s beliefs.

And in many ways limiting one’s ideas to a purely evolutionary schema can lead to absurd results. As I noted elsewhere, the attempted application of evolutionary origins to human psychology and sociology has been used to justify seeing a mental depression as a ‘good’ thing contrary to all common sense. Of course it has in the past been used to justify now defunct notions such as eugenics.

Also notable is the inherent contradiction in the reality that the US is simultaneously the most creationist friendly country in the world while being one of the most scientifically literate and accomplished countries. That fact in and of itself should put to death the notion that somehow a belief “non-natural, non-measurable” deity is incompatible with scientific literacy.

In the final consideration it appears that the only persons working in the sciences that see it as essential to reject any religious beliefs are those for whom the sciences serve not as a means of exploring the universe, but as means of justifying their own atheistic beliefs.

In paradise. Well, of the earthly sort. I spent the last several days exporing the wonder of Glacier National Park, and have generaly been out of range of any networks (yeah nature!). I will be spending the next couple of days working my way slowly east through the Badlands. Hope to post something of interest by early next week; including a few pictures.

I have chronicled elsewhere how the growth of the gay lobby diminishes the basic liberties of others. Now, in addition to attacks on freedom of speech, religious practice and association, the homosexual agenda is beginning to diminish academic freedoms.

This last week, Kenneth Howell, an adjunct Professor in the religion Dept. at the University of Illinois, was fired from his job. His horrible crime? Teaching the subject of his class. The Illinois News-Gazette gives the details:

Kenneth Howell was told after the spring semester ended that he would no longer be teaching in the UI’s Department of Religion. The decision came after a student complained about a discussion of homosexuality in the class in which Howell taught that the Catholic Church believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.

Howell has been an adjunct lecturer in the department for nine years, during which he taught two courses, Introduction to Catholicism and Modern Catholic Thought. He was also director of the Institute of Catholic Thought, part of St. John’s Catholic Newman Center on campus and the Catholic Diocese of Peoria. Funding for his salary came from the Institute of Catholic Thought.

One of his lectures in the introductory class on Catholicism focuses on the application of natural law theory to a social issue. In early May, Howell wrote a lengthy e-mail to his students, in preparation for an exam, in which he discusses how the theory of utilitarianism and natural law theory would judge the morality of homosexual acts.

The student complaint came in a May 13 e-mail to Robert McKim, head of the religion department. The author of the e-mail said he was writing on behalf of a friend – a student in Howell’s class, who wanted to remain anonymous. The e-mail complained about Howell’s statements about homosexuality, which the student called “hate speech.”

“Teaching a student about the tenets of a religion is one thing,” the student wrote in the e-mail. “Declaring that homosexual acts violate the natural laws of man is another. The courses at this institution should be geared to contribute to the public discourse and promote independent thought; not limit one’s worldview and ostracize people of a certain sexual orientation.”

So a professor in a religion department at a public University teaching about Catholic doctrine teaches about Catholic doctrine, and loses his job. And all it took for him to be fired was for a gay student to be upset about him teaching the subject of the class.

This is yet another example of how in the name of ‘independent thought’ and the encouragement of ‘public discourse’, the gay agenda represses both. They have in the most Orwellian fashion undermined the basic beliefs and freedoms of the university in the name of tolerance.

It continues to become increasingly clear that those who are advancing the power of the homosexual lobby do so to the detriment of others basic freedoms – and no one who is interested in maintaining those freedoms should do anything to help this group become more powerful.